Jump to content

Talk:Demographics of Argentina/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Whites in Argentina

About "whites in Argentina": race as implied in the classification is an archaic concept, not supported by modern biology. This is especially true of a very mixed population like that of Argentina. Besides that, there has been no racial classification for a while in Argentina (if there ever was). When a census comes, we're not obligated to check a box besides a racial category, as in the United States for example. Therefore, I doubt there are any good statistical sources on "white" vs. "non-white" population, whatever those terms are taken to mean. "Overwhelmingly European descent" is verifiable and enough. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

True. Although I believe the change meant "caucasians". It's still dubious if Argentina has the highest proportion in the Americas. I wouldn't make that assessment. I'm sure other countries have high percentage of caucasian population as well, although I wouldn't venture a guess. Sebastian Kessel Talk

Yiddish

I have again restored Yiddish to the list of "other" languages. It appears to have been removed in an uncommented edit. While Yiddish does not figure all that prominently in Argentina, Argentina figures prominently in Yiddish. YIVO had (perhaps has? I'm not sure) a major office in Buenos Aires, and that city also was the most important center of Yiddish theater in the Spanish-speaking world (see [1] for poster examples). And, before the founding of Israel, Argentina was one of the major destinations for the Jewish back-to-the-land movement. See Jewish gauchos. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the last time the Yiddish was removed was here. User CrazyAmerican (accidentally?) removed both Yiddish language, as well as the genetic research. I'll restore the genetic research as well. Mariano(t/c) 07:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yiddish has a history in Argentina, but the language is no longer "living"... there may be 1000 native speakers. Far less than Korean, Cantonese or Romanian. Also: the figure for "Jewish" of 2% implies that there are over 700 000 Jews in Argentina, whilst the actual number is closer to 200 - 300 thousand. elpincha 17:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Also: The current reference 1 is a disgrace. It is a non-authoritative source, and it gets its numbers by multiplying the total population by the "percentage" number which is a coarse rounding (look at Argentina as an example; there are others). Other gross errors... there are more than 6M Jews in Israel, and it is an accepted fact in most research the communities in UK and Canada are now larger than that in Argentina. elpincha 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

INDEC and World Back on Black roots

The cited text says:"Funded in part by the World Bank and assisted by Argentina's census bureau". So, I don't understand why user Coldheartedman (talk · contribs) claims those references don't exist. Mariano(t/c) 10:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's referring to a separate study conducted by INDEC which was funded by the World Bank that isn't a scientific study but a survey. The genetic study conducted by the University of Buenos Aires and Oxford University is unrelated to the other study and is not connected to either the world bank or the Census Bureau. Coldheartedman 10:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You'r right! My appologies.Mariano(t/c) 11:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself

Hello to all, I just added {{contradict}} on the article 'cause this needs a good rewording and clarification, ASAP. Let's see:

  1. Sources like the CIA or MSN Encarta state that white people are 97% of the population, whereas the article says "around 56% possess at least some Amerindian blood". Theres a lot of difference between 97% and 56%, how many people were included in this genetic analysis?
  2. The page states that no black people are included in the ethnic groups, whereas it says "some 10 percent of those who identified themselves as white were, in a part, descendants of black Argentines". (???)
  3. Also, it says that "According to the Complementary Survey of Indigenous Peoples, 318,683 indigenous persons were counted in the country. This corresponds to a little over 0.8% of Argentina’s total population. (...) Others place numbers at a maximum of 2 million persons (those with aboriginal genetic stock from both paternal and maternal lines, but in a destance greater than one generation and no longer culturally integrated to recognised aboriginal communities)." What the heck?

I'd like to see other people's opinions. Cheers. —This We'll Defend (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss things civilly when Al-Andalus (talk · contribs) reverted all my edits without another explanation than "Article doesn't contradict". What's going on there? Is this page an exception to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? —This We'll Defend (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If you quote, quote me completely. I said "Article doesn't contradict, merely shows different conclusions reached by different parameters." If I had more space on edit summary I would go into detail. Now let's see. None of the concerns above are based on any actual problem or alleged contradiction. There is clearly no contradiction. As I have clearly stated, the article merely incorporates different statistics provided by different sources, which were reached using different parameters.
As an example, Mexico's population according to Mexican government agencies is quoted at about 12% Amerindian, however, other agencies place the number around 30%. Which is right? Both are, because they use different parameters. The Mexican government only counts as Amerindian people who are racially Amerindian and also speak and indigenous language and are integrated to an indigenous community. Other agencies include even the racially Amerindian who may no longer speak an indigenous language and are detached from indigenous communities. Both of the sources should be added, and this does not make the article contradictory.
Finally, I take offence to your suggestion that I was being anything other than civil. The way I see it, you are reverting the article to a version which contains only one POV. Al-Andalus 19:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't contradict itself, at least in its previous form. Genetic science is not always precise, of course, and more importantly it doesn't give easily interpretable answers. To report well-documented, verifiable scientific claims, with appropriate caveats is entirely appropriate, even if they give different 'answers'. I am not a fan of the CIA factbook as we cannot analyse it much, but it probably gives an accurate picture of how people currently identify themselves in Argentina, as expressed through censuses and the like. But a genetic and historical study unsurprisingly suggests a wider level of ethnic mixing, both due to the substantial criollo, pre-mass immigration population which would, I guess, have seen a similar level of inter-marriage and inter-breeding as anywhere else in the Spanish realms; and because of the fact that non-'European' genetic markers appear in European populations, due to migrations over the century, especially in Southern Italy and Spain.
I would like the contradict marker removed and the genetic research information restored and left alone. What might be an interesting addition to the article is why this research and its findings is proving contraversial, including on Wikipedia. Sitting here in London, it doesn't surprise me one bit to find such mixed ethnicity results, but there must be studies on why, in a society of such mixed origins, non-White heritage has been denied and only recently rediscovered. Mtiedemann 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Second the above. Race qualifications, either self-assumed or imposed by external sources, are artificial constructs. Here in Argentina, I'm "white"; in the U.S. I'd have to tell census authorities that I'm "Latino", maybe. Both European ancestry and the results of those genetic analyses should be summarized but prominently placed, since they're far more important than the results of a self-assumed race survey where you're given 3 or 4 discrete and completely arbitrary options to choose from. Please, let's have all the data mentioned briefly and accurately in the article, and let's not make this bigger than it is. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Mtiedemann, the Argentine population doesn't deny non-White heritage, and I really doubt Argentina is just another Latino country with its Amerindian and Mestizo population being the majority. Why? For several reasons:
1) Argentina had several military campaigns (i.e: Conquista del Desierto) which almost completly exterminated the indigenous peoples, leaving the country only to the white population. Call it genocide or mass murdering if you want, but that's the only truth.
2) Also it should be noted that Argentina, unlike another Latin American states, had an important European immigration, both before and after the two World Wars.
3) Finally, both things were absolutely supported and organised by the federal government; and in the first issue, with Domingo F. Sarmiento and Julio A. Roca as its most well-known figures. If you don't believe me, heres a nice page for you (sorry, it's in Spanish). [2]
That's because so many people were "shocked" with the genetic analysis' results; and I must admit it, I also was surprised. If you walk on Buenos Aires you'll see a lot of European architecture, European culture and European people, with smaller or nearly inexistent Amerindian influences.
In my opinion, if the article must state the DNA tests it also must include part of the Argentine history. Regarding ethnic groups, Argentina surely is a rare country. --Darklegions 02:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Darklegions and VsA. The article appears to contradict itself, some of the paragraphs are not clear; I also agree with mainly improving this article, leaving the demographics' section of Argentina as it is now. I'll try to make some changes later, now I must go to bed. =) Cheers. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, the demographics' section of Argentina should be stay as the original, saying that the Argentine population is overwhelming European descendant is fairly enough. Goodbye. —This We'll Defend (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it has been made sufficiently clear that the City of Buenos Aires and the three major Atlantic provinces (Buenos Aires province, Santa Fe province, and Córdoba province), do not on their own constitute the whole of Argentina. Granted, those place harbour over 65% of the population (which since the begining of the 18th century has been European in its overwhelming majority), but there is more to Argentina than just that area. You have all the provinces of the interior, Jujuy, Salta, Santiago del Estero, Corrientes (where to top it off, Guaraní is an official language alongside Spanish), Tucumán, etc. These places together harbour around 35% of the population (which is not exactly a small minority), and they have always been mestizo strongholds, although there are also large white minorities in most of those provinces (dedicated as the provincial administrators and other such workers). The problem is that to the average person, especially the insulated and arrogant porteño, Buenos Aires is seen as on its own being Argentina, and scr*w the rest of the "cabecitas negras". Its arrogant, full stop.
I thank all the other users who have agreed that the article does not contradict itself, and is merely following Wikipedia's guidelines and NPOV.
This discussion has made me remember a brilliant Argentine film I saw last year, "Bombon El Perro". It was brilliantly acted and produced, and is a recent release. It is refreshingly set in the Argentine interior, and for those who haven't had the chance to visit those provinces of Argentina, or for the sheltered porteños, the film is a beautiful journey of Argentina beyond the over-stressed Buenos Aires and platense region. You'll get a chance to see typical Argentines of these seldom mentioned, and often purposely denied and attempted-to-be-forgotten regions (despite containing 35% of the population). Al-Andalus 06:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Some anecdotes: my middle-class cousins in Martinez GBA would be shocked to think of themselves as anything as 100% white, of course, but if you look at photos of our ancestors in 1860, before they married new arrivals from Navarra and Euskadi, they look mestizo. Sure, this may be an anomaly, perhaps, or reflect their (possible) southern Spanish background, but I personally would be really pleased to find native American heritage in my roots. Also, my mother has worked for Aerolineas Argentinas in London for 35 years, and sees the changes in the Argentine visitors and London-based community, as conditions and finances change there and here. She is quite clear; having grown up in an entirely white Argentina, she is very surprised at the racial mix of Argentines turning up now. Also, she grew up in Chubut and doesn't remember it being mixed, but now when visiting Chubut and also San Martín last year, we both observed the much more prominent indigenous population. Friends in Esquel say there has been movement in from the country and villas, perhaps of people who were never recorded by census, there were many children, and there is immigration of Mapuche from Chile, they said. Even in Mercedes BA, we found a much more visible mixed population.
I understand that Argentina is different - I've travelled in Peru, Brazil, Paraguay and Chile too - although the style of buildings (or the lack of spice or indigenous ingredients in the food) is immaterial: Bolivia's main buildings were also paid for and designed by white people, until Morales, they just happened to look elsewhere for architectural inspiration. But the key point is that we must distinguish, as stated above, between self-certifying censuses and the visibly majority white population, which says something about identity, foreign relations, etc., and more recent migration, social trends and scientific, verifiable research, which can tell us something about the underlying and historic trends. These are not contradictory, they just document different things. Perhpas we can learn from demographic research in the US, where finding black or native American heritage in the collective genotype has been seen for a longer period than in Argentina. Mtiedemann 08:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. And most of the changes your mother has seen is because of Argentines from other parts of Argentina who are now more mobile, not immigrants (Paraguayans, Bolivians, Chileans, etc. living in Argentina do not travel with Argentine passports, let alone if they are illegal, as many would be). If we consider Argentina to be White majority country (as it is), it is interesting to note that proportionally Spain has in the last ten years received around the same amount of mestizo (and some Amerindian) immigration from Latin America as has Argentina from neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, Argentina looks vastly more diverse. This is because most of the mestizo element now visible in Argentina has always been in Argentina. Visible is the key word. It is not a consequence of new immigrants from Paraguay, Chile, Peru or Bolivia. Although diminished (especially in Buenos Aires and other urban centres) when they were absorbed by the waves of European immigrants, those Argentine mestizos (not immigrants) not yet absorbed still conform a considerable minority, and in the last half century they started moving around the country and settling in places other than their traditional strongholds of the interior. That's why you now see mestizos (who are mostly other Argentines, not immigrants) in Chubut and other places. Al-Andalus 11:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Methodology: The only way to make it clear that the article doesn't contradict itself is to explain the method used to determine racial affiliation. How does the CIA get that 97% of white population? Saying that 97% of Argentinians are white is simplistically wrong. If, for example, we say that "on a nation-wide survey conducted in 2000, 97% of the people surveyed described themselves as white", then that would be better. I don't have the impression of bias for or against the central provinces vs. the peripherical ones; this is really just a matter of semantics.
Amerindian heritage: The Conquest of the Desert did not exterminate all the remaining aboriginal population; many were taken to serve in virtual slavery to BA and other places. Migration from the periphery to the central provinces and from neighboring countries also stirred the racial mix. More importantly, there were 300 years between the first European settlement and the CotD - plenty of time for mestizaje to occur, and its occurence has been proven by the genetic analysis. I think we should absolutely not make an issue of the alleged Argentine denial of its Amerindian ancestry; that is a topic for a different article, or for an essay (outside WP), and it's potentially very controversial. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with you, controversial subjects like this should be sourced or not included. Saying that Argentines deny its Amerindian ancestry is also POV and maybe even OR. Homever do not think that the Amerindians who survived the CotD stayed in Argentina, some were taken to neighbouring countries for (more) slavery work.
Please do not modify the article, let's discuss the issue first. I'll talk to Al-Andalus and see if he agrees. —This We'll Defend (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Same here. --OneEuropeanHeart 17:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle Eastern

As well as the under-representation of current and historical native American demographics, there isn't a mention of Lebanese and Syrian immigration/populations. Again, I suspect that the history of the 'turcos' in Argentina has been hidden as people sought to either assimilate or separate, and only recently have people reasserted their Muslim faith and Arab-Argentine identity.

In some parts of the country, this is a locally important population; there is the obvious recent political relevance (Menem, Yoma); and Arab-Argentines were seen in differnet parts of the country, such as Chubut near the oil fields and elsewhere (my mother had several childhood friends in Esquel that her family called 'turcos', but she never made the connection until she was an adult, and some even attended church only later to tell her that they were Muslim at home...).

Does anyone have sourced material to add on this? Mtiedemann 12:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Some material, in Spanish, of varying quality and usefulness, but good for a start:
No time for more right now... —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle Easterners are mentioned. Also, do realise that most Arabs and other Middle Easterners in Argentina and Latin America (and all of the Americas for that matter) are Christian. In the case of Peru, most of the few Middle Easterners (or should I say, the mixed descendants of Middle Easterners) are the descendants of Moroccan Jews who arrived in the Peruvian Amazon city of Iquitos about a century ago. If you're interested, they are the accidental descendants of Maghrebi Jewish traders and tappers who arrived in the region during the rubber boom of the 1880s. It's very hard for any of these Middle Easterners to reassert a Muslim faith they never held. Islam and Middle Easterners are not synonymous. Al-Andalus 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit touchy, are we? FWIW I searched Google with "argentinos de origen árabe" to get the above. Naturally, Islamic sources came up, as well as others mentioning Christians, especially Syrian-Lebanese, and a few others mentioning Jews. I never implied what you're saying. However, note that some of the sources mention large numbers of Muslims in some parts of Argentina. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I was refering to user Mtiedemann, not your reply (which I personally though was a good job). Al-Andalus 17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Afro-Argentineans

Contrary to popular opinion, Argentina imported a significant number of slaves before the transatlantic slave trade ended. For example, Blacks represented a whopping 25 percent of the Buenos Aires population in 1838 ( Graham: The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870-1910). Moreover, historial records show that blacks or mulattoes comprised 30-49 percent of the Argentine population in 1800 (Andrews: Afro-Latin America, 1800-2000). The number of blacks in Argentina gradually declined as racism an xenophobia prompted the government to whitten the population through the massive importation of Europeans. As a result, blacks in Argentina were gradually reduced to an invisible minority and were pushed aside by newcomers. I must stress however, that Argentina's colored populations did not simply disappear as it has been suggested. Rather, blacks and Indians were either absored into the population (ie: interacial sex relations) or cast off to secluded communities where they could be easily forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.165.209.92 (talk • contribs)

Please see the above comments, especially those about the Conquest of the Desert and the deportation of black people to neighbouring countries. BTW, without citing sources your statement can be considered original research. --OneEuropeanHeart 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demographics_of_Argentina/Archive_1&oldid=967836049"